Another case that is also related to same-sex marriage rights — a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA — will be heard the following day, on March 27, at the same time. That case is called United States v. Windsor.

In granting review to both marquee marriage equality cases exactly one month ago, the nation’s highest court set the stage for potentially landmark rulings on LGBT civil rights that promise to be the most eagerly-anticipated of the current court term. Rulings are expected by the end of June.

The legal issues at stake in the challenge to Prop 8, the controversial 2008 ballot measure that eliminated marriage rights for same-sex partners in California, are two-fold: first, whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and second, whether the proponents of Prop 8 have legal standing to litigate the case.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights filed the lawsuit in May 2009 on behalf two California couples who sought to marry: Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. They are represented by lead counsel Theodore B. Olson and David Boies. City Attorney Dennis Herrera intervened as a co-plaintiff in the case in August 2009, renewing San Francisco’s groundbreaking pubic sector legal advocacy for the broader societal interest to end marriage discrimination against lesbian and gay couples. At trial, Herrera and his legal team provided extensive evidence that state and local governments derive significant societal and economic benefits when same-sex partners enjoy equal marriage rights — and, conversely, that denying such rights inflicts grave injustices on the LGBT community that, in turn, harm government and society at large.

When the high court granted review to the case on Dec. 7, 2012, Herrera said: “The federal challenge to Prop 8 represents one of the most significant civil rights cases to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court in decades, and I’m confident that the high court will reach a decision that reaffirms our Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s argument calendar for March is published online here:

Revelations from San Bruno tragedy lead San Francisco to seek federal court order compelling regulators to strictly enforce U.S. safety standards

SAN FRANCISCO (July 14, 2011) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera has taken the first step toward suing the California Public Utilities Commission and federal regulators for their failure to reasonably enforce federal gas pipeline safety standards as required by the Pipeline Safety Act. The notice of intent to sue Herrera delivered late today is a legally-required precursor to civil litigation by San Francisco, which will seek a federal court order to compel the CPUC and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to enforce federal pipeline safety standards in an effective manner.

Herrera’s move comes in the wake of increasingly troubling revelations in news accounts and last month’s sharply critical report by an independent review panel investigating the deadly explosion of a PG&E gas transmission line in San Bruno, Calif. on Sept. 9, 2010, which resulted in the loss of eight lives and the destruction of 38 homes. That investigation report concluded that CPUC’s “culture serves as an impediment to effective regulation,” and went on to fault regulators who “did not have the resources to monitor PG&E’s performance in pipeline integrity management adequately or the organizational focus that would have elevated concerns about PG&E’s performance in a meaningful way.” The City Attorney’s Office will file its comments on that investigation report with the CPUC tomorrow.

Now, when I was there at the Club Suede, at various political fundraisers and whatnot, everything was copacetic, but I never experienced it on a weekend night so I don’t know what it was like.

But what I do know is that these operators won’t be operating a nightclub at 383 Bay ever again. Get all the deets, below.

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior…

…wasn’t too pleased with the owners of the Suede nightclub:

Herrera secures injunction to permanently bar ‘Club Suede’ operators from re-opening a place of entertainment

Agreement includes $20,000 payment to the City by owners of Fisherman’s Wharf nightclub that was the site of fatal shooting in February

SAN FRANCISCO (Oct. 20, 2010)— A San Francisco Superior Court judge has approved a settlement and stipulated injunction negotiated by City Attorney Dennis Herrera that will permanently prohibit the owners and management of Club Suede, the notorious nightclub that was the site of a fatal shooting earlier this year, from operating an entertainment venue at the Fisherman’s Wharf property.

The injunction approved by Judge Peter J. Busch this morning bars defendants Hanson Wong, Ken Wong, Sunny Auyeung, Jason Gee, Frank Chan, Li Jiang, and Taliesin Entertainment Group, LLC from opening or seeking permits to operate a place of entertainment at 383 Bay Street, or maintaining the property in a manner that constitutes a public nuisance. The agreement additionally provides that the property must be maintained at all times in compliance with San Francisco Municipal Codes intended to protect the health and safety of tenants and neighbors.

“This agreement protects the safety of nightclub goers and neighbors, and assures fair treatment to the vast majority of law-abiding entertainment venues that comprise one of San Francisco’s most vibrant economic sectors,” said Herrera. “I’m grateful that the owners and operators of Club Suede recognized our firm resolve in pursuing this case, and agreed to a fair and reasonable settlement to conclude it.”

Club Suede was the site of a fatal shooting in the early hours of Feb. 7, 2010, and its operators have been reported for a pattern of nuisance and unlawful conduct dating as far back as 2007. Though Club Suede voluntarily closed its doors some months ago, today’s stipulated injunction permanently prevents the operators from reopening a place of entertainment at the violence-plagued establishment. The venue had been a frequent site of Police Department service calls for violent incidents, including some involving firearms; neighborhood +-vandalism; and crowd control problems, according to the civil complaint Herrera filed in April. The club’s long established pattern of illegal and unfair business practices additionally includes operating beyond permitted business hours; permitting consumption of alcohol after 2:00 a.m.; inadequately credentialed security personnel; and multiple violations of state and local codes.

The case is: City and County of San Francisco and People of the State of California v. Hanson Wong et al., S.F. Superior Court case no. 498-677, filed Apr. 15, 2010. A copy of the court order and additional documentation is available on the City Attorney’s Web site at http://sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=317.

Herrera secures court-ordered closure of ‘Club Suede,’ site of fatal shooting. Superior Court’s order assures that violence-plagued nightclub must remain shuttered for the duration of City Attorney’s legal action

SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 28, 2010) — A San Francisco Superior Court judge this morning granted City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s motion for a preliminary injunction to shutter Club Suede, a notorious Fisherman’s Wharf nightclub that was the site of a fatal shooting earlier this year. In issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Peter J. Busch found that Herrera is likely to prevail on the merits on the causes of action alleged in his complaint filed in April of this year. Hanson Wong and Taliesin Entertainment Group are named as defendants for their operation of the establishment at383 Bay Street. Though Club Suede voluntarily closed its doors some months ago, today’s preliminary injunction will prevent the operators from reopening the violence-plagued establishment for the duration of the lawsuit.

“San Francisco treasures its vibrant night life and the vast majority of entertainment venues that operate responsibly,” said Herrera. “Unfortunately, Club Suede’s refusal to abide by the law has created a dangerous environment for club-goers and neighbors alike. Policing irresponsible establishments like Club Suede is about protecting public safety and assuring fair treatment to the law-abiding entertainment businesses that comprise one of our City’s most important cultural and economic sectors.”

Club Suede was the site of a fatal shooting in the early hours of Feb. 7, 2010, and its operators have been reported for a pattern of nuisance and unlawful conduct dating as far back as 2007. The venue has been a frequent site of service calls by the San Francisco Police Department for violent incidents, including some involving firearms; neighborhood vandalism; and crowd control problems, according to Herrera’s complaint. The club’s long established pattern of illegal and unfair business practices additionally includes operating beyond permitted business hours; permitting consumption of alcohol after 2:00 a.m.; inadequately credentialed security personnel; and multiple violations of state and local police and safety codes. The City and the defendants are currently engaged in settlement discussions.

The case is: City and County of San Francisco and People of the State of California v. Hanson Wong; Taliesin Entertainment Group, LLC et al., San Francisco Superior Court case no. 498-677, filed Apr. 16, 2010. A copy of the court order and additional documentation is available on the City Attorney’s Web site at http://www.sfcityattorney.org.

Failure to relate ‘a legitimate state interest’ pivotal to U.S. District Court finding that Prop 8 violates U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment

SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 4, 2010) — A federal court decision that today found Proposition 8 in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses relied on key arguments and evidence presented by City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office about the adverse governmental consequences of the 2008 ballot measure, which eliminated fundamental marriage rights for same-sex partners in California.”

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior, DJH:

“Herrera’s motion to intervene in the case originally brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights on behalf of two California couples was granted by Judge Walker nearly a year ago. In doing so, the court held that the City and County of San Francisco was the only party in the case — including the Governor and State Attorney General — then willing to represent a public sector interest on the question of the initiative’s validity. At trial, Herrera’s office provided extensive evidence that state and local governments derive societal and economic benefits when same-sex couples enjoy equal marriage rights — and, conversely, that denying such rights inflicts grave harm on lesbians and gay men, which in turn imposes significant costs on government and society. The City’s case made a showing that when governments participate in discrimination against their own citizens, there can be little hope of eradicating private discrimination.

Like this morning, at 383 Bay Street, the site of boarded-up Suede Nightclub and the scene of a host of problems. Check it out, looks as if the entire City, including elements of the Entertainment Commission, wants this Club Suede shut down for far longer than just 30 days.

The scene today at Powell and Bay, with Board of Supervisors President and District 2 Supe David Chiu and members of the Entertainment Commission and the SFPD. We had elected and appointed officials all lined up taking turns to herald the value of a “vibrant” nightlife scene in San Francisco. Then they all ripped on Suede:

“City Attorney Dennis Herrera will be joined by Police Chief George Gascón, Board President Supervisor David Chiu, Entertainment Commissioners Terrance Allan and Audrey Joseph at a press conference this morning, Thursday, April 15, for an announcement relating to today’s filing of a complaint against the owner and operator of Club Suede.

Club Suede is a notorious public nuisance in the Fisherman’s Wharf area where the club’s unruly crowds, fights, shootings, and stabbings have plagued the business community and surrounding neighborhood. The club’s egregious pattern of disorderly conduct eventually led to the violence that culminated in this past February’s fatal shooting.

What:
Press conference on City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s litigation against the owner and operator of Club Suede

City Attorney invokes authority under Unfair Competition Law in seeking evidence for marketing claims by gender prediction test sold in S.F.

SAN FRANCISCO (March 10, 2010) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today invoked his legal authority under California’s Unfair Competition Law to demand substantiation for advertising claims by Intelligender LLC that its in-home fetal gender prediction product, which is sold and marketed in San Francisco, is “totally safe” and over 90 percent accurate.

“California law empowers public sector attorneys to seek proof for marketing claims for products sold to the consumers they’re responsible to protect,” said Herrera. “Intelligender is a product that came to our attention in which some of the advertised claims are dubious, and for which supporting evidence is notably unavailable to potential customers. Women and families interested in purchasing products like this are entitled to see the evidence that will enable them to be better informed consumers.”

According to Herrera’s letter to the Plano, Tex.-based manufacturer:

“The IntelliGender Test purports to accurately identify the gender of a fetus as early as 10 weeks after pregnancy, and well before ultrasound confirmation of fetal gender is available to expectant mothers. However, according to online reviews of your product, it appears that your advertising claim that the IntelliGender Test is ‘over 90% accurate’ is questionable. Additionally, as your product packaging does not identify the contents of the IntelliGender Test, there are concerns about the safety and proper means of disposal of the Test.

“The San Francisco City Attorney hereby requests that you provide evidence of the facts supporting the advertising claims of IntelliGender listed below, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §17508, which empowers city attorneys to request substantiation of purportedly fact-based advertising claims. For all claims listed below indicating that scientific methods were utilized, please include full reports of experiments, methods, results, and outcomes, in addition to the CVs and biographies of the clinicians retained to perform these trials and tests.”

Herrera asked that Intelligender provide documentation responsive to his request by the end of the month, noting that we would consider seeking “an immediate termination or modification of the claim,” as state law provides, if the information were not forthcoming.

Our three-term City AttorneyDennis J. Herrera has just released the news about how San Francisco recently won a little compensation to pay for all the extra work it’s doing to bring poorly–ratedCitiApartments / Skyline Realty* to justice. Keep in mind that these penalties are not to punish (’cause that part will come later). No, no, this $50K is just to pay us back for the extra expenses we recently incurred due to relentless foot-dragging from the infamous Lembi Familyet alia.

Poor Judge Munter had to spend half of the hearing deciding how to divvy up the penalties among all the interrelated defendants. Oh well.

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior: His middle name is Jose, his son speaks Mandarin Chinese and he’s been working on gay legal issues for donkey’s years, at least since the 1990’s – do you think all that might help him if he decides to run for Mayor in 2011?

Pwned:

Herrera wins Court sanctions against CitiApartments for “obfuscation, delay.” Landlords’ defiance in the face of City Attorney’s ‘Herculean efforts’ triggers order to cooperate with discovery, pay $50K sanction

SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 2, 2010) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera has won Court-ordered sanctions against a labyrinthine web of defendants involved in the operation of CitiApartments and Skyline Realty, the residential property management and investment behemoth Herrera first sued in 2006 for its stunning array of unlawful business practices. The order, which was signed by San Francisco Superior Court Judge John E. Munter last month and obtained this morning, compels each of the two-dozen corporate, trust and individual defendants currently named in the suit to respond to discovery requests in compliance with rules of civil procedure, and to pay sanctions to the City totaling $50,129.50, which reflects San Francisco’s fees and costs to pursue its motion to compel. Munter’s order requires all of the defendants to comply with the order by Feb. 19, 2010.

“CitiApartments deserved to be sanctioned for its continued defiance in this case, and I’m gratified to Judge Munter for calling these tactics exactly what they are — ‘obfuscation, delay and meritless objections,'” said Herrera. “I hope this sanction sends a message to Frank Lembi, Walter Lembi and all of the defendants responsible for CitiApartments’ lawless conduct that there is a limit to judicial patience, and they’ve reached it. This has been a long, difficult case to address what is perhaps the most egregious corruption of San Francisco’s residential housing market in modern history. We remain committed to pursuing this case aggressively, and I hope these sanctions are a tipping point that hastens our progress toward a just outcome.”